In a stunning display of listening to people who actually know things, ministers have scrapped plans to gut jury trials in England and Wales. The proposals, which would have replaced juries with a lone judge in thousands of cases, sparked a fierce backlash from lawyers - who, shockingly, welcomed the U-turn. The victims' commissioner, however, is less thrilled, expressing concern about abandoning measures drawn up by former justice secretary David Lammy under Keir Starmer's government to tackle the record court backlog.
There are almost 81,000 cases clogging the crown courts, a number projected to hit 100,000 without the now-ditched changes. That's a lot of waiting for victims and defendants, who currently measure their wait for justice in years, not months. The Ministry of Justice is spinning the U-turn as a quicker fix, saving the time it would take to set up a new judge-only crown court bench division. Because nothing says efficiency like admitting you were wrong.
Justice secretary Alex Norris said: "This government inherited criminal courts on the brink of collapse, with victims waiting years for their day in court. I remain committed to bringing down the backlog and delivering swifter justice for those who so desperately need it. But I have heard the strength of feeling on the proposals for increasing the number of judge-alone trials in the crown court and have made the decision to change course." He added, presumably with a straight face: "This allows us to start that work far earlier, ensuring that under this government we do not have victims waiting endlessly for justice. Justice delayed is justice denied, and I am committed to maximising efficiencies in our system alongside record investment."
The original proposals came after a government-commissioned review by former judge Sir Brian Leveson, who recommended stripping thousands of defendants of their right to a jury trial to prevent the criminal justice system from collapsing. Critics, including Geoffrey Robertson, founding head of Doughty Street Chambers - where Starmer, Lammy, and attorney general Richard Hermer KC all spent part of their careers - accused Labour of abandoning a centuries-old right and argued it wouldn't reduce the backlog substantively. Some Labour MPs also opposed the move, proving that even internal dissent can occasionally be useful.
The legislation would have removed jury trials for defendants likely to receive a sentence of up to three years. Ministers haven't abandoned judge-only trials entirely, but they'll now be reserved for a small number of especially lengthy and technical fraud cases where the judge decides a jury trial is inappropriate. The government will also retain Lammy's plans to take away a defendant's right to choose between crown court and magistrates for "either way" offences - those decisions will now be in the hands of magistrates. And the planned increase in magistrates' sentencing powers, from 12 months to 18 months (with an option to extend to two years), will still go ahead. Because what could possibly go wrong with giving magistrates more power while prisons are at capacity?
Kirsty Brimelow, chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales, welcomed the government's "swift action" but warned: "We underline that it is a dangerous experiment to increase sentencing powers of magistrates and remove the right to elect from defendants at a time when prisons are at capacity and the backlog of cases is accelerating in the magistrates courts." She added: "We know that women, black people, mixed race people and older people elect jury trials more often than other groups and this proposal risks deepening existing disparities and exacerbating distrust in the justice system from minoritised communities." The Law Society of England and Wales and the Criminal Bar Association also welcomed the change of heart while expressing concern about pushing more cases to magistrates. The Law Society additionally called for more investment, including in legal aid - because apparently money is still a thing.
Victims' commissioner Claire Waxman said: "Victims are entitled to ask whether what remains will be enough to meet the challenge [of delivering swifter justice]. Indeed, they are being asked to place their faith in a plan that ministers themselves previously argued would not be. The lessons from the prisons crisis should be clear: postponing difficult decisions rarely solves problems. More often, it simply stores them up for the future. Victims need hope. They need to know this is genuine reform that matches the scale of the challenge: reform that will alleviate their prolonged suffering, rather than an easy compromise that delivers only marginal improvements today while leaving both the justice system, and the victims who rely on it, vulnerable tomorrow."
Courts minister Sarah Sackman KC said other steps to tackle the backlog could include using AI to help list cases, more virtual hearings, and ensuring defendants arrive to court on time. So, to recap: juries are safe (mostly), magistrates are getting more power (still), and the government is hoping AI and punctuality will save the day. What could possibly go wrong?